Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Jhudson844 Date: Dec 6, 2003 4:39pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

" What bands are you taping?"

All of the good ones. :) Specifically I have taped and seeded a total of right around 100 shows to the archive from 22 bands/artists:

Acoustic Syndicate
Ancient Harmony
Barefoot Manner
Big Wu, The
Brock Butler
Donna the Buffalo
Driftwood Express
Garaj Mahal
Hobex
Jenni Alpert
John Butler Trio
Keller Williams
Leftover Salmon
Mood Cultivation Project
Moonshine Still
Mountain of Venus
New Monsoon
Perpetual Groove
Recipe, The
Steep Canyon Rangers
Tishamingo
Umphrey's McGee

"Are you taping/trading in particular subpools where there is a problem, or perceived problem, with traders in that pool "cheating" on your purity?"

I'm aware of the fact that not everyone is a quality snob like myself. I do my best to educate them on all things lossless. In addition to it improving the quality of sources in circulation, having people download from the archive greatly reduces the demand from people who want you to get them a copy personally via trade, B&P, etc. Would I prefer that people all go losless? Certainly. There are worse things in the world that people enjoying great music that has been degraded however, so I'm not going to bother burdening them with making my own "rules" like saying "don't encode to mp3" that they are going to ignore anyway. We have laws in our society that say "don't smoke pot", and 100 million out of 290 millions have tried it. Unlike laws like speed limits that are widely disregarded, smoking pot and converting shows to mp3 have not killed anyone yet.

mp3's can be a valuable resource for people who do not yet have access to broadband to get a quick and general idea of whether or not they will like that music so they can then set up a trade for a copy in a lossless format. It would seem like a waste of time for me to download an entire show in that format, but that's their decision.

If I am taping a band whose material I don't know that well and didn't get an exact setlist at the show, having mp3s available would allow me to possibly get the setlist worked out. Generally when I am in that situation I just post the show in another lame lossy format, real audio, to my site and give their fans a heads up to tune in on discussion boards/mailing lists, etc so they can help me with the setlist and in turn get it seeded faster for their downloading pleasure. Not all tapers have that option though so I think a lot of them would benefit from having easy access to mp3s to help fill out their setlists quickly.

Ultimately I won't lose sleep over this either way. I'd like to see as much variety of music on the archive as possible. On the one hand mp3 might help diversify, but if we have tapers who are so infuriated by the decision they pull their recordings it could also take away. I would suggest that if at all possible if a lossless copy of the show is available on the archive, that the option not be given to seed an mp3 source of it as well, but not vice versa so that if a lossy copy goes up first the community isn't deprived of a chance to download it in .shn or .flac. Not sure how difficult that would be to implement though.

I think of the archive as being exactly what it is, a giant library collection not limited to audio recordings. Any attempts to limit what goes into it is ultimately a form of censorship. I'm not going to be the one to encourage censorship no matter what my personal opinion is on having mp3s on the archive. The archive is an amazing resource and we are lucky to have it! Thanks again to all responsible for building and maintaining this place :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Dec 7, 2003 12:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

A theory may be emerging on a way through this in the short term:
* pick a period of time for a test, say 2004
* respect individual tapers and uploaders who say "no audio versions" for particular shows
* after a time to let this all settle, convert other shows to 192Kb/sec MP3's
* see if it increases our user population significantly.
* strongly encourage lossless formats for uploads (education)
* openly discuss the evaluation of this system about this time next year.


You may ask-- why a test period of a year? well we are an archive and we think long term. Our culture makes us hesitant about taking things out of archives (images of burning come to mind), and restrictions that last forever. Forever is a long time.

In this pass, should we do high-resolution ogg's as well to try to push open standards?

What do you think?

-brewster


This post was modified by brewster on 2003-12-07 08:47:36

This post was modified by brewster on 2003-12-07 08:48:24

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:20pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

In this pass, should we do high-resolution ogg's as well to try to push open standards?

Sure, the people of Slashdot would cheer for instance. :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: niuphan Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

With regards to this whole trial period of hosting lossy file formats...(or hosting lossy formats AT ALL)

I know there are several reasons people want MP3's hosted, but mostly it comes down to they either do not have enough bandwidth, or they don't have the patience to WAIT.

With that in mind, lets say the archive decides to permanently host MP3's (after the year trial). What about 3 or 5 or 10 years from now when bandwidth is no longer an issue? As you probably have noticed, over time bandwidth has gotten cheaper and faster. Before cable/DSL became affordable or even available we all used modems. Now the cost of a dial up ISP is virtually the same as cable/DSL.

Modems will be extinct (believe it or not), people will be forced into high speed connections. Eventually there will be enough bandwidth to the point where we can stream SHN/FLAC.

When bandwidth is no longer an issue in this world, all we will have is an archive half full of degraded audio recordings. (and no one downloading them)

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the archive just quadruple their bandwidth? (I'm sure it won't be the last time). A show can be downloaded in an hour or two! Lets look in to the future and consider the long term ramifications of hosting lossy formats on the archive.

Thoughts?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

Thoughts?

How about a discussion and evaluation after 1 year? ;)

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 09:48:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Dec 8, 2003 3:30am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

How about a discussion and evaluation after 1 year? ;)

Because by then the damage is done.

I agree 100% with what niuphan said and I'd just like to add a few more points:

1.) Not only will bandwidth become cheaper and more prevalent but it's very likely that advances in compression algorithms will severely decrease the size of lossless audio files.

2.) Increased popularity in 24-bit audio will make the disparity between lossless and lossy audio even greater.

Dave

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:23pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

It is interesting to me that already there are 3 approaches:
* uniform access-oriented formats
* some-and-some based on the wishes of tapers
* only taper-oriented formats

The access formats are more accessible both because they are smaller and streamable, but because they are more widely supported without plug-ins or downloads.

Therefore at one year the "some and some" compromise approach could stay where it is, or go full access, or go full trade-oriented based on how the technology and culture shifts.

An experimental some-and-some period seems to be as close to middle of the road we have.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Dec 7, 2003 6:48pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

Ive given it some thought, and, I cant agree with this method.

My other two posts illustrate how Im very interested in the long term education of the masses in regard to lossless. But, as I stated there, I just cant accept any method of action that will impose a heiarchy in the trading circles or impose a limit to a listener's right to choose. I mean, what % of people that just want an audio show they can get in the mail are going to be left out if tapers started appending their txt files with that disclaimer?

Then we go into the whole sociological aspect of it. Youve seen how the tapers get when you even hint at MP3s. Do you want that to start happening with audio? Going back to the DMB community example, people there are programmed to attack when others ask for MP3s. think of how it would be if people were all of a sudden told "no audio", and compound that with the idea that you want MP3s to be reintroduced as acceptible media. Im not saying people wont get used to it if that was the case, but im saying that its not conducive to a functional trading community.

And thats all just hypotheticals, too. I highly doubt people are going to induce a switch this big. I think anything of the sort needs to be a natural progression, much like how people are slowly switching to FLAC but not imeadiatly (incidently enough, the DMB community has gotten very little if any shows in FLAC).

I think the most idealistic of situations would be what phishlive.com offers, where youre given the choice of what to download, the documentation to educate you on what's what and how it works, and the lack of third party interference, ie txt disclaimers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nmculbreth Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: End audio-format trading > have mp3s too

i can't speak for others but i haven't moved to flac because it isn't supported by all operating systems (if memory serves correct it won't work in os 9). i use flac for 24 bit, but i haven't seem a good enough reason to switch for 16 bit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 7, 2003 9:47pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

* respect individual tapers and uploaders who say "no audio versions" for particular shows

Brewster, was that a typo for "no lossy versions"? From what I see in Erich's followup, this might need some clarification.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 12:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

I was following Diana's suggestion of:
"Do Not Encode to Audio Format for Trading"
from this post:
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=10595

As I understand it, it is the ability to confirm that it is correct that is the key-- thus the centralized checksum on a lossless or losslessly compressed file.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model needs refinement

Hmm, but the no-audio-format idea is something that can only pertain to trading practices, which would be in effect outside the bounds of the LMA, in the relevant trading pool(s) themselves.

If there's a no-audio-trading statement on something, it can't bear on the LMA holdings, because we're not mailing out audio discs to folks over here. :)

Indeed, I'm suggesting file stampers shift their demand from no-mp3 to no-audio, because it forces a stronger fix over at the level where the perceived problem is instead (the trading pool), where quality-degrading audio discs *are* handed around right now.

At the same time, the LMA is taken out of the equation. The newer type of filestamp (for those who do want to stamp files) gives a benefit to the larger world beyond the trading pool- the LMA is freed up to bring more choices to non-traders.


This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 09:07:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nmculbreth Date: Dec 7, 2003 10:19pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

would this request still be honored after the one year trial period?